Death penalty

Bonam · February 3, 2011

If we believe in a life for a life we should have no problem with gang wars. The only guilty party would be the one committing the first murder. What is the difference other than legality?

The problem with gang wars is that they put innocent bystanders in danger and that they can destroy and devalue neighbourhoods where they take place. If gangs went to a special sealed off area where no one else would get hurt and no property would be damaged to have their wars, I'd be all for it, let em thin out each other's numbers.

dre · February 3, 2011

The problem with gang wars is that they put innocent bystanders in danger and that they can destroy and devalue neighbourhoods where they take place. If gangs went to a special sealed off area where no one else would get hurt and no property would be damaged to have their wars, I'd be all for it, let em thin out each other's numbers.

If gangs went to a special sealed off area where no one else would get hurt and no property would be damaged to have their wars, I'd be all for it, let em thin out each other's numbers.

That was exactly my idea for militant minded muslims and westerners that have trying like crazy to start shit with each other lately. Israeli and Palestinian shit disturbers too!

Let the nuts that wanna fight have at her just someone where everyone else doesnt get caught in the crossfire. Im picturing a gigantic stadium where these guys can battle it out, while we make bets, drink beers and eat hotdogs.

Shwa · February 3, 2011

You are, of course, assuming that those principles are the only principles that we need to consider when we sentence someone to jail. The concept of justice (of ensuring proper punishment is administered for a particular crime) should also be considered. And no, I'm not suggesting "an eye for an eye"... etc. If we did have the death penalty (not that I'm suggesting we should; I think I've made it completely clear that the risk of executing an innocent person is a valid argument against it), I would want it reserved for only those convicted of extreme crimes (e.g. multiple murders, or ones with exceptional circumstances such as the involvement of torture).

No, I am not assuming those are the only principles we need to consider when sentencing someone, just that they cannot be applied if we execute them.

In fact, your "principles of rehabilitation, redemption and restitution" wouldn't necessarily apply in this case. For those convicted of (for example) multiple murders, they would likely never be released into society, so they'd never have the chance for restitution. And rehabilitation/redemption is irrelevant, since the individual would never be released. This is of course assuming it were even possible to rehabilitate someone like Bundy or Bernardo.

Nope, rehabilitation, redemption and restitution are applicable in all cases and are available to be applied to monsters like Bernardo or Pickton as they are for a petty thief. That you cannot see how these principles can be applied to the monsters is not a product of the principles themselves, but a product of your thinking.

Now, believe me, I think some of these monsters deserve to die for their crimes. And if they died, I wouldn't shed a damned tear. But in the final analysis what gives me the right to believe it is okay for others to be executed when they themselves likely held the same belief before they murdered someone?

You and I can argue this until the cows come home which only shows that giving the state this right is an ugly slipperly slope and generally a big step backward.

Now someone else mentions psychopathy or sociopathy. Fair enough. But those are determinations towards an end state - a diagnosis - they say nothing about how the treatment of such conditions could be implemented in the future once we have given it some thought or applied our knowledge of neuroscience, which is a rapidly advancing field.

Is it possible that some day we might cure psychopathy or sociopathy because we had the consent of the psychopaths and sociopaths in our prison system to treat them? Well, we are doing this now. So the end state is not the diagnosis, but successful prevention and treatment methods. And yes, even for a Bernardo or Pickton.

Shwa · February 3, 2011

Be patient, Saipan. A few of our posters will no doubt be jumping in very soon to explain to us how natives have such a perfect society that they are entitled to a different sentence than any other Canadian. What's more, it will be explained that the woman raised in an aboriginal society would never have committed such a violent act in the first place. This means that the entire report must be a fabrication of some white reporter like Christie Blatchford, as a ruse to try to make aboriginals look bad.

Failing all that, we'll be told that since her case was based on logic the entire affair must have been "a figamentation of your imagination", as Bullwinkle J Moose used to say...

For someone who makes determinations of whole populations based upon the deviant - and illegal - actions of a very few, perhaps you may want to look at your own trolling instead.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. Only because I see it as the least worst option.

Me too. We need to have free choice to hang dangerous criminals.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

For someone who makes determinations of whole populations based upon the deviant - and illegal - actions of a very few

Hmmm, that would be Wendy Cukier, Allan Rock and all the other Hoplophobes.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

The problem with gang wars is that they put innocent bystanders in danger and that they can destroy and devalue neighbourhoods where they take place. If gangs went to a special sealed off area where no one else would get hurt and no property would be damaged to have their wars, I'd be all for it, let em thin out each other's numbers.

Our government just start building such places. We call them jails.

And I agree, instead TV cables and gyms, supply them with good quality butter knives, spoons and forks and release rival gangs in the yard on Saturdays - televized of course.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

That you cannot see how these principles can be applied to the monsters is not a product of the principles themselves, but a product of your thinking.

True enough. When we say that such and such a person is beyond rehabilitation, we judge this not on any evidence, but rather on the severity and brutality of the actions committed.

In other words, we tend largely to talk out of our asses on such matters.

Hell, my entire life, I've heard that "convicted pedophiles always tend to reoffend." But now I find out that this Simply.Isn't. True. Sex offenders of all stripes have a relatively low recidivism rate. And the more openly predatory type of child molesters aside, most pedophiles might be quite eager to banish that particular demon. At the very least, how I can categorically state this isn't the case?

I guess the same way I might categorically state that "such and such a person is beyond redemption."

And why? Well, because....just because.

Now, believe me, I think some of these monsters deserve to die for their crimes. And if they died, I wouldn't shed a damned tear.

Me too.

But in the final analysis what gives me the right to believe it is okay for others to be executed

Just so.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

But in the final analysis what gives me the right to believe it is okay for others to be executed when they themselves likely held the same belief before they murdered someone?

You don't have to exercise that right. But you can't deny it to others.

It's all about protecting the public.

segnosaur · February 3, 2011

And in some cases, we jail people not because its necessary to "protect society", but because sentencing someone to jail is seen as "adequate punishment".

The only consideration is not the protection of society...

Sorry, but in your previous response you started to go off in a tangent stating it was "not necessary to protect society". I never stated that it was necessary, so it gets a little confusing when you bring up points that I was not debating.

(Note: There have been cases where convicted criminals have escaped, and/or killed people in prison. Its statistically small however, but it does happen.)

...punishment is part of it. I'm just saying that as long as a person is incarcerated, they are no threat to society so capital punishment is just that, punishment, not the protection of society.

And I never tried to argue otherwise. I stated right from the start that it was an issue of ensuring that people were adequately punished for the crime.

If that's what people want, so be it but don't try and sugar coat it. For whatever reason it is imposed, an execution is premeditated murder that is state sanctioned.

Ummm first of all, pretty much by definition execution is not "premeditated murder". Pretty much any definition I've seen for murder indicates that the death is something outside the bounds of the law. So something that is "state sanctioned" is, by definition, legal and therefore not murder.

Secondly, I find it quite ironic that you would accuse people of "sugar coating" arguments for capital punishment, yet you do the exact same thing; you use false definitions/arguments (i.e. capital punishment=murder) in order to try to somehow justify your position.

Once again, claiming "capital punishment=state sanctioned murder" is no more accurate than saying "arrest/incarceration=state sanctioned kidnapping", or saying "fines=state sanctioned theft".

Re: Death is "a little more final than jail"...
I was pointing out that death is more final than incarceration. Not sure if you were trying to disagree, or whether you simply misread what I wrote.

I believe you said "a little more final". Just pointing out that how little is a matter of perspective.

Yes I did use "a little more final". Its called hyperbole.

Wilber · February 3, 2011

Me too. We need to have free choice to hang dangerous criminals.

Let me get this straight. You believe the state should be able to force someone to have an abortion?

Wilber · February 3, 2011

Sorry, but in your previous response you started to go off in a tangent stating it was "not necessary to protect society". I never stated that it was necessary, so it gets a little confusing when you bring up points that I was not debating.

(Note: There have been cases where convicted criminals have escaped, and/or killed people in prison. Its statistically small however, but it does happen.)

If that is the case, my bad.

Should we then execute all convicted criminals because they might escape or kill someone in prison. All prison murders or murders committed by freed or escaped prisoners are not committed by someone with a previous murder conviction.

And I never tried to argue otherwise. I stated right from the start that it was an issue of ensuring that people were adequately punished for the crime.

The question is, does "adequately punished" extend to taking someones life.

Ummm first of all, pretty much by definition execution is not "premeditated murder". Pretty much any definition I've seen for murder indicates that the death is something outside the bounds of the law. So something that is "state sanctioned" is, by definition, legal and therefore not murder.
Secondly, I find it quite ironic that you would accuse people of "sugar coating" arguments for capital punishment, yet you do the exact same thing; you use false definitions/arguments (i.e. capital punishment=murder) in order to try to somehow justify your position.

Once again, claiming "capital punishment=state sanctioned murder" is no more accurate than saying "arrest/incarceration=state sanctioned kidnapping", or saying "fines=state sanctioned theft".

There is nothing more premeditated than an execution whether carried out by the state or an individual.

I am aware of the legal definition of murder but really what is the difference except a bunch of legislators passing a law that sanctions it?

Arrest/incarceration is indeed state sanctioned kidnapping, the question is how much do we let the state sanction? We need to get certain people off the streets so they can do no harm. We do not need to kill them.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

Let me get this straight. You believe the state should be able to force someone to have an abortion?

If the baby is very dangerous, YES!

Saipan · February 3, 2011

We need to get certain people off the streets so they can do no harm. We do not need to kill them.

And those who are against hanging them should pay for their upkeep. Not the victims/public.

segnosaur · February 3, 2011

You are, of course, assuming that those principles are the only principles that we need to consider when we sentence someone to jail. The concept of justice (of ensuring proper punishment is administered for a particular crime) should also be considered. And no, I'm not suggesting "an eye for an eye"... etc. If we did have the death penalty (not that I'm suggesting we should; I think I've made it completely clear that the risk of executing an innocent person is a valid argument against it), I would want it reserved for only those convicted of extreme crimes (e.g. multiple murders, or ones with exceptional circumstances such as the involvement of torture).

No, I am not assuming those are the only principles we need to consider when sentencing someone, just that they cannot be applied if we execute them.

Yet when you gave the principles, you ignored the concept of justice/punishment. So you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were only concerned about those 3 things.

Nope, rehabilitation, redemption and restitution are applicable in all cases and are available to be applied to monsters like Bernardo or Pickton as they are for a petty thief. That you cannot see how these principles can be applied to the monsters is not a product of the principles themselves, but a product of your thinking.

As I said: Restitution is not applicable because an incarcerated individual has pretty much no ability to provide any real restitution to society. Redemption and rehabilitation are irrelevant, because the type of people that would normally be sentenced to the death penalty have participated in crimes so horrible that they'd never be let out of jail. It doesn't matter if Bernardo all of a sudden started to feel remorse, or if Picton realized the error of his ways and wanted to hug puppy dogs. They should still remain in jail and as such whatever improvements that have happened in their lives don't really matter.

Now, believe me, I think some of these monsters deserve to die for their crimes. And if they died, I wouldn't shed a damned tear. But in the final analysis what gives me the right to believe it is okay for others to be executed when they themselves likely held the same belief before they murdered someone?

Ummm... for pretty much the same reason that gives police/government the right to arrest and incarcerate someone even though society says that kidnapping is wrong, and the same reason that gives police/government to fine someone even though society says theft is wrong.

And once again, the process of rationalization a murderer goes through are not the same that society goes through when performing capital punishment. The murderer does not care about due process, following any sort of society guidelines, etc.

You and I can argue this until the cows come home which only shows that giving the state this right is an ugly slipperly slope...

Nope, its not.

Not any more than the government-sanctioned kidnapping (i.e. arrest/incarceration) of people is a slippery slope towards internment camps. We have due due process, judicial oversight, and the political system.

...and generally a big step backward.

Nope, its not a step back. Or a step forward. Its just an arbitrary line that an individual draws that says "this is valid punishment; this other stuff is not".

Would you consider it a valid point if someone claimed the existence of any jail is a "big step backwards"? After all, it curtails freedom, and we in western society consider freedom to be a rather key concept.

Now someone else mentions psychopathy or sociopathy. Fair enough. But those are determinations towards an end state - a diagnosis - they say nothing about how the treatment of such conditions could be implemented in the future once we have given it some thought or applied our knowledge of neuroscience, which is a rapidly advancing field.

Irrelevant.

Even if, in the future, we could cure all "psychopaths", we actually have to live in the here and now. Waiting a half century for a possible pill to cure 'evil' is not exactly a winning idea.

Oh, and here's something to consider: There is at least some evidence that attempts to "treat" psychopaths may actually be counterproductive. The "treatment", in certain individuals, may allow them to improve their skills (in things like deception) and thus make them more of a threat.

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/14/12/1235.abstract

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

And those who are against hanging them should pay for their upkeep. Not the victims/public.

Wrong. They are a product of the society, and they are a bane to the society, and so are the society's responsibility. If one believes they have gone against the very laws of God, then you might have some footing to stand on (in a theocracy). If you believe they have broken the laws of man, and the laws are not Holy, but are flawed but necessary steps for the general protection and well-being of society, then we do, by definition, have a responsibility to the criminals.

In fact, belief in capital punishment presumes an inherent responsibility of society to deal with the problem...at society's cost. The difference (in cost) can only ever be one of degree, not a difference in paradigm and the basic philosophy.

Shwa · February 3, 2011

You don't have to exercise that right. But you can't deny it to others.

It's all about protecting the public.

I am not denying to others, but those charged with protecting the public - the government and constitition - is. If you have a beef take it up with them. Take them to court, let us know how it works out for you.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

Wrong. They are a product of the society

And we can discard our product if it doesn't functions as it suppose.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

And we can discard our product if it doesn't functions as it suppose.

No, we can't. Perhaps you're unaware that we don't have the death penalty.

Saipan · February 3, 2011

No, we can't. Perhaps you're unaware that we don't have the death penalty.

Times are changing. Pop your corn and watch. It started with larger prisons. People are fed up. Thanks to hoplophobes.

segnosaur · February 3, 2011

And I never tried to argue otherwise. I stated right from the start that it was an issue of ensuring that people were adequately punished for the crime.

The question is, does "adequately punished" extend to taking someones life.

Well, that's a decision that has no real answer, and depends only on a person's personal views.

If you want to claim that jailing someone is "adequate punishment", you have that right. However, that does not automatically make someone who feels execution is "adequate punishment" is automatically wrong.

Put it this way... if someone came out and said "incarceration is state sanctioned kidnapping and the state should not do it", would you consider yourself any less moral than that individual?

Ummm first of all, pretty much by definition execution is not "premeditated murder". Pretty much any definition I've seen for murder indicates that the death is something outside the bounds of the law. So something that is "state sanctioned" is, by definition, legal and therefore not murder.
Secondly, I find it quite ironic that you would accuse people of "sugar coating" arguments for capital punishment, yet you do the exact same thing; you use false definitions/arguments (i.e. capital punishment=murder) in order to try to somehow justify your position.

Once again, claiming "capital punishment=state sanctioned murder" is no more accurate than saying "arrest/incarceration=state sanctioned kidnapping", or saying "fines=state sanctioned theft".

There is nothing more premeditated than an execution whether carried out by the state or an individual.

Ummm... never claimed that executions weren't premeditated. My complaint was the way you characterized it as murder, which by definition it is not.

I am aware of the legal definition of murder...

Yet you chose to ignore it, in an attempt to unfairly smear (through false words) those who might support the death penalty. So you have no problem lying to justify your position is what you're saying.

but really what is the difference except a bunch of legislators passing a law that sanctions it?

Ummm... how about:

- those legislators are usually (in the western world) democratically elected and thus answerable to the people

- Because whatever laws are passed have to respect the constitution of whatever country (and typically constitutions cannot be changed on a whim, and are set up to ensure fair treatment of citizens)

- Because, once whatever capital punishment laws are in place, there will (at least in western society) be procedures that must be followed

Those are rather significant differences between capital punishment and the lone murderer killing because he doesn't give a cr*p.

Arrest/incarceration is indeed state sanctioned kidnapping, the question is how much do we let the state sanction? We need to get certain people off the streets so they can do no harm.

Yet we still 'kidnap' (incarcerate people) even if there are other options that would also prevent them from doing harm. Bernie Maddow is a perfect example.

We do not need to kill them.

We also don't need to let them (meaning convicted criminals who's crimes are especially heinous) live either. Ignoring costs for a moment (since it can get tricky, comparing the cost of incarceration vs. legal fees in carrying out a death sentence), keeping such individuals alive serves no value to society, other than the false sense of smugness held by those who falsely equate murder with capital punishment.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

Times are changing. Pop your corn and watch. It started with larger prisons. People are fed up. Thanks to hoplophobes.

Well, if it ever happens--and if it does, it will be a long, long time before the regression--I don't think I'll join you in munching popcorn whilst viewing executions with enjoyment.

Even if I supported capital punishment, I'd find such a thing repugnant. No doubt many death penalty advocates do as well, considering the matter solemn and morally grey.

And, by the way, people who hold differing views on the rights to gun ownership are not related in any way.

Edited February 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

Saipan · February 3, 2011

Well, if it ever happens--and if it does, it will be a long, long time

The new prisons are being built as we speak.

Even if I supported capital punishment, I'd find such a thing repugnant.

I find the murderes far MORE repugnant. But most of all dangerous to society. And I know they are not some endangeres species to be protected.

I find the Hoplophobes who blame lawabiding citizen also more repugnant.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

Well, that's a decision that has no real answer, and depends only on a person's personal views.

If you want to claim that jailing someone is "adequate punishment", you have that right. However, that does not automatically make someone who feels execution is "adequate punishment" is automatically wrong.

Put it this way... if someone came out and said "incarceration is state sanctioned kidnapping and the state should not do it", would you consider yourself any less moral than that individual?

Ummm... never claimed that executions weren't premeditated. My complaint was the way you characterized it as murder, which by definition it is not.

Yet you chose to ignore it, in an attempt to unfairly smear (through false words) those who might support the death penalty. So you have no problem lying to justify your position is what you're saying.

Ummm... how about:

- those legislators are usually (in the western world) democratically elected and thus answerable to the people

- Because whatever laws are passed have to respect the constitution of whatever country (and typically constitutions cannot be changed on a whim, and are set up to ensure fair treatment of citizens)

- Because, once whatever capital punishment laws are in place, there will (at least in western society) be procedures that must be followed

Those are rather significant differences between capital punishment and the lone murderer killing because he doesn't give a cr*p.

Yet we still 'kidnap' (incarcerate people) even if there are other options that would also prevent them from doing harm. Bernie Maddow is a perfect example.

We also don't need to let them (meaning convicted criminals who's crimes are especially heinous) live either. Ignoring costs for a moment (since it can get tricky, comparing the cost of incarceration vs. legal fees in carrying out a death sentence), keeping such individuals alive serves no value to society, other than the false sense of smugness held by those who falsely equate murder with capital punishment.

I was forced to cocnede many excellent points you've made throughout this debate. Seriously.

But in the end, you fall victim to exactly--exactly--the same sort of attributes you've been criticizing.

How could this be? I dunno.

You say

keeping such individuals alive serves no value to society, other than the false sense of smugness held by those who falsely equate murder with capital punishment.

this is dead wrong. Do you not imagine there might be people with a principled opposition to executions who are not "smug," who do not call it "murder" (you're correct about this...except we don't allow the same technical legal outs for official enemies who happen to be heads of state. Saddam, Jong-il, etc.)

Do you really think all opponents of the death penalty (who oppose it on grounds different than your own cautious ones)are "smug"?

It's simply not the case.

bloodyminded · February 3, 2011

The new prisons are being built as we speak.

Ok...I'm saying that, if the death penalty were to be brought back, it would take a long, long time. I'm saying a generation, at least.

You seem to think that's not the case.

Circumstances alone will prove to us who is correct. What's your prediction? Mine is thirty years (and I'd be quite surprised if it happens that quickly, honestly.)

What's yours?